Border Security: Reassessment of Consular Resource Requirements
Could Help Address Visa Delays (04-APR-06, GAO-06-542T).
In deciding to approve or deny a visa application, the Department
of State's (State) consular officers are on the front line of
defense in protecting the United States against those who seek to
harm U.S. interests. To increase border security following the
September 11 attacks, Congress, State, and the Department of
Homeland Security initiated a series of changes to border
security policies and procedures. These changes have added to the
complexity of consular workload. But consular officers must
balance this security responsibility against the need to
facilitate legitimate travel. In recent years, GAO has issued a
series of reports on the visa process. This statement discusses
(1) wait times for visas, (2) factors that affect wait times, and
(3) GAO's recent work on consular staffing.
-------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
REPORTNUM: GAO-06-542T
ACCNO: A50837
TITLE: Border Security: Reassessment of Consular Resource
Requirements Could Help Address Visa Delays
DATE: 04/04/2006
SUBJECT: Border security
Consulates
Homeland security
Internal controls
Strategic planning
Visas
Administrative procedures
Policies and procedures
Timeliness
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO Product. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
******************************************************************
GAO-06-542T
* Summary
* Background
* Applicants May Face Extensive Wait Times for Visa Interviews
* Officials, Groups Have Noted Impact of Visa Delays on U.S. S
* Several Factors Contribute to Wait Times for Visas
* Visa Policy and Procedural Changes Have Increased Consular W
* Increasing Visa Demand Strains Consular Resources
* Facilities Constraints Limit State's Options for Addressing
* Staffing Shortfalls Impact the Effectiveness of Visa Operati
* State Has Not Assessed Overall Consular Resource Needs
* Conclusions
* Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
* GAO's Mission
* Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony
* Order by Mail or Phone
* To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
* Congressional Relations
* Public Affairs
Testimony
Before the Committee on Government Reform, House of Representatives
United States Government Accountability Office
GAO
For Release on Delivery Expected at 10:00 a.m. EDT
Tuesday, April 4, 2006
BORDER SECURITY
Reassessment of Consular Resource Requirements Could Help Address Visa
Delays
Statement of Jess T. Ford Director International Affairs and Trade
GAO-06-542T
April 4, 2006
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:
I am pleased to be here to discuss GAO's observations on delays in the
nonimmigrant visa process.1 In deciding to approve or deny a visa
application, the Department of State's (State) consular officers at 211
visa-issuing posts overseas are on the front line of defense in protecting
the United States against potential terrorists and others whose entry
would likely be harmful to U.S. national interests. But consular officers
must balance this security responsibility against the need to facilitate
legitimate travel. Congress, State, and the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) have initiated a series of changes since the September 11
attacks to enhance border security policies and procedures. These changes
have added to the complexity of consular officers' workload. They have
also, in turn, contributed to the delays facing foreign citizens at some
posts who are seeking visas for travel to the United States. For example,
in February 2004, we reported that applicants had faced delays when
scheduling appointments for visa interviews at consular posts in China and
India.2 Although wait times in China have improved in recent months,
applicants in India continue to face long delays. Moreover, worldwide,
nine posts reported maximum wait times of 90 or more days in February
2006. In light of the increased workload per visa applicant due to
additional border security requirements, we recommended in October 2002
and again in September 20053 that State reassess its staffing
requirements.
Today I will discuss (1) wait times facing visa applicants, (2) factors
that affect wait times, and (3) our recent work on consular staffing
concerns. My statement covers a series of reports that we have issued
regarding the visa process and related areas. Over the course of our work
for these reports, we have reviewed relevant legislation and agency
documents, interviewed State's consular and human resource officials in
Washington, and observed visa operations and interviewed consular
officials at more than 20 consular posts. In addition, in 2005, we
interviewed consular staff at 25 overseas posts regarding issues such as
visa policies and procedures, staffing, and training. Our work was
conducted in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards (see appendix I for a list of GAO reports).
1The United States also grants visas to people who intend to immigrate to
the United States. In this testimony, the term "visa" refers to
nonimmigrant visas only. Persons who may require nonimmigrant visas
include temporary business travelers and tourists.
2See GAO, Border Security: Improvements Needed to Reduce Time Taken to
Adjudicate Visas for Science Students and Scholars, GAO-04-371
(Washington, D.C.: Feb. 25, 2004).
3See GAO, Border Security: Strengthened Visa Process Would Benefit From
Improvements in Staffing and Information Sharing, GAO-05-859 (Washington,
D.C.: Sept. 13, 2005), and GAO, Border Security: Visa Process Should Be
Strengthened as an Antiterrorism Tool, GAO-03-132NI (Washington, D.C.:
Oct. 21, 2002).
Summary
Since September 11, 2001, applicants have faced extensive wait times for
visas at some posts. According to consular officials, posts that
consistently have wait times for visa interview appointments of 30 days or
longer may have a resource or management problem. State's data show that
between September 2005 and February 2006, 97 posts reported maximum wait
times of 30 or more days in at least one month; at 20 posts, the reported
wait times were in excess of 30 days for this entire 6-month period.4
Further, in February 2006, nine posts reported wait times in excess of 90
days. In Chennai, India, applicants applying for visas faced an average
reported wait time of 126 days over this 6-month period.
Several factors have contributed to delays for visa interview appointments
at some consular posts. For example, new policies and procedures
implemented since the September 11 attacks have strengthened the security
of the visa process; however, these new requirements have increased
consular workload and exacerbated delays. For example, consular officers
are now required to interview virtually all visa applicants. Additionally,
some applicants have faced additional delays because of special security
checks. Other factors, such as resurgence in visa demand, and ongoing
consular facility limitations, could continue to affect wait times.
In September 2005, we reported that State had not conducted a worldwide,
comprehensive assessment of staffing requirements for visa operations. In
commenting on a draft of that report, State argued that it had a staffing
plan. While State has increased hiring of consular officers, we continue
to see a need for such an assessment to ensure that State has sufficient
staff with the necessary skills at key consular posts, particularly in
light of the visa processing delays at some posts.
4According to consular officials, in cases where posts report wait time
data more than once in a given month, State's data are the maximum wait
time reported that month.
Background
The 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended, is the primary body
of law governing immigration and visa operations.5 The Homeland Security
Act of 2002 generally grants DHS exclusive authority to issue regulations
on, administer, and enforce the Immigration and Nationality Act and all
other immigration and nationality laws relating to the functions of U.S.
consular officers in connection with the granting or denial of visas.6 As
we reported in July 2005, the act also authorizes DHS to, among other
things, assign employees to any consular post to review individual visa
applications and provide expert advice and training to consular officers
regarding specific security threats related to the visa process.7 A
subsequent September 2003 Memorandum of Understanding between State and
DHS further outlines the responsibilities of each agency with respect to
visa issuance. DHS is responsible for establishing visa policy, reviewing
implementation of the policy, and providing additional direction. State
manages the visa process, as well as the consular corps and its functions
at 211 visa-issuing posts overseas.
The process for determining who will be issued or refused a visa contains
several steps, including documentation reviews, in-person interviews,
collection of biometrics8 (fingerprints), and cross-referencing an
applicant's name against the Consular Lookout and Support System-State's
name-check database that posts use to access critical information for visa
adjudication. In some cases, a consular officer may determine the need for
a Security Advisory Opinion, which is a response from Washington on
whether to issue a visa to the applicant. Depending on a post's applicant
pool and the number of visa applications that a post receives, each stage
of the visa process varies in length.
5P.L. 82-414, 8 U.S.C. S: 1101 et seq.
6State retains authority in certain circumstances, as outlined in the act.
See P.L. 107-296.
7The act also requires that DHS on-site personnel in Saudi Arabia review
all visa applications prior to adjudication by consular officers. P.L.
107-296, Sec. 428(e) and Sec. 428(i). See GAO, Border Security: Actions
Needed to Strengthen Management of Department of Homeland Security's Visa
Security Program, GAO-05-801 (Washington, D.C.: July 29, 2005).
8Biometrics is a wide range of technologies that can be used to verify a
person's identity by measuring and analyzing that person's physiological
characteristics. For the purposes of this testimony, "biometric
identifiers" refers to fingerprints. See GAO, Technology Assessment: Using
Biometrics for Border Security, GAO-03-174 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 14,
2002).
Applicants May Face Extensive Wait Times for Visa Interviews
According to consular officials, posts that consistently have wait times
for visa interview appointments of 30 days or longer may have a resource
or management problem. To monitor posts' workload, State requires that
posts report, on a weekly basis, the wait times for applicant interviews.9
As of March 2006, State's data showed that between September 2005 and
February 2006, 97 posts reported maximum wait times of 30 or more days in
at least one month; at 20 posts, the reported wait times were in excess of
30 days for the entire 6-month period. Moreover, in February 2006, nine
posts reported wait times in excess of 90 days (see table 1).
Table 1: Consular Posts with Maximum Reported Wait Times for Temporary
Business and Tourism Visa Interview Appointments in Excess of 90 Days,
February 2006
Post Maximum Wait Time in Days
Chennai, India 168
Ciudad Juarez, Mexico 92
Havana, Cuba 129
Mexico City, Mexico 134
Mumbai, India 154
New Delhi, India 91
Paris, France 116
Port Au Prince, Haiti 167
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil 140
Source: Department of State.
According to the Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs,
managing consular workload is a major issue for the department,
particularly at posts in India and China where volume is expected to
continue to increase. In February 2004,10 we reported that officials at
some of the posts we visited in India and China indicated they did not
have enough space and staffing resources to handle interview demands and
the new visa requirements. According to consular officers, during the 2003
summer months, the wait for visa interviews was as long as 12 weeks in
Chennai, India. In China, applicants at one post were facing waits of
about 5 to 6 weeks during our September 2003 visit due to an imbalance
between demand for visas and the number of consular officers available to
interview applicants and staff to answer phones. Although these posts have
undertaken initiatives to shorten the wait times, such as using temporary
duty help and instituting longer interviewing hours, delays for visa
interviews remain an ongoing concern. For example, the U.S. embassy in New
Delhi instituted a new appointment system in October 2005, which resulted
in immediate, additional interviewing capacity at post, according to
consular officials. However, reported wait times in New Delhi had risen
above 90 days by February 2006 (see table 2).
9Posts are asked to provide the appointment wait time applicable to the
majority of applicants applying for a given category of visas on a given
day, and not an average wait time. In September 2005, our analysis of
State's data on reported wait times revealed significant numbers of posts
that did not report on a weekly basis during the 6-month period we
reviewed. Therefore, the data were not sufficiently reliable to fully
determine how many posts had wait times in excess of 30 days. We
recommended that State ensure that consular chiefs update interview wait
time data on a weekly basis. For the purposes of this statement, the data
are sufficiently reliable to broadly indicate that delays for visa
appointments are an ongoing concern.
10 GAO-04-371 .
Table 2: Maximum Reported Wait Time in Days for Temporary Business and
Tourism Visa Interview Appointments at Posts in India, September 2005
through February 2006
Post September October November December January February
India
Calcutta 111 96 101 94 94 86
Chennai (Madras) 168 121 122 84 123 136
Mumbai (Bombay) 79 Not reported 70 127 134 154
New Delhi 140 9 24 40 74 91
Source: Department of State.
At posts in China, Consular Affairs indicated that improvements in
facilities and staff increases have helped to lessen wait times for
interviews. However, consular officials have acknowledged that demand for
visas at posts in China is likely to rise and continue to affect wait
times in the future. Table 3 shows recent wait times for visa appointments
in China.
Table 3: Maximum Reported Wait Time in Days for Temporary Business and
Tourism Visa Interview Appointments at Posts in China, September 2005
through February 2006
Post September October November December January February
China
Beijing 36 21 25 34 26 18
Guangzhou 49 30 17 18 Not reported 1
Shanghai 58 28 30 36 33 19
Shenyang 35 12 2 7 6 8
Source: Department of State.
Officials, Groups Have Noted Impact of Visa Delays on U.S. Scientific and
Business Interests
Although we have not attempted to measure the impact of the time it takes
to adjudicate a visa, we reported in February 2004 that consular officials
and representatives of several higher education, scientific, and
governmental organizations reported that visa delays could be detrimental
to the scientific interests of the United States. Although these officials
and representatives provided numerous individual examples of the
consequences of visa delays, they were unable to measure the total impact
of such lengthy waits. For example, in September 2003, Department of
Energy officials in Moscow explained that former Soviet Union scientists
have found it extremely difficult to travel to the United States to
participate in U.S. government-sponsored conferences and exchanges that
are critical to nonproliferation efforts. Business groups have also
expressed concern about the impact of visa delays. For example, officials
from the American Chamber of Commerce and other industry executives have
testified numerous times in recent years about the problem of delayed
entry for foreign nationals traveling to the United States for legitimate
business purposes. In addition, on June 2, 2004, a coalition of eight
industry associations published a study estimating that U.S. companies
suffered losses totaling $30 billion from July 2002 to March 2004 due to
delays and denials in the processing of business visas.11 Beijing's Deputy
Chief of Mission and consular officials at the embassy and consulates in
China also stated that visa delays could have a negative impact on student
and scholar exchanges.
11The Santangelo Group, Do Visa Delays Hurt U.S. Business? (Washington,
D.C.: June 2, 2004).
Several Factors Contribute to Wait Times for Visas
Visa delays are a longstanding problem. However, since September 2001,
several factors have exacerbated wait times for visas. First, changes to
visa policies and procedures have resulted in additional workload for
consular officers. Second, while not reaching pre-2001 levels, visa
application volume has increased in recent years. Third, many posts face
facility constraints, which limit the extent to which posts can increase
visa processing. Finally, staffing shortfalls also affect the length of
time that applicants must wait for a visa.
Visa Policy and Procedural Changes Have Increased Consular Workload
Since the September 11 attacks, Congress, State, and DHS have initiated a
series of changes to policies and procedures designed to enhance border
security. These changes have added to the complexity of consular officers'
workload and, in turn, exacerbated State's resource constraints. These
changes include the following:
o Consular officers must interview virtually all visa applicants;
prior to August 2003, they could routinely waive interviews.
o Since October 2004, consular officers are required to scan
foreign nationals' right and left index fingers and clear the
fingerprints through the DHS Automated Biometric Identification
System before an applicant can receive a visa.12
o Some responsibilities previously delegated to Foreign Service
nationals13 and consular associates14 have been transferred to
consular officers. For example, consular associates are no longer
authorized to adjudicate visas.
o As previously mentioned, some applicants have faced additional
delays due to various special security checks, or Security
Advisory Opinions. For example, foreign science students and
scholars, who may pose a threat to our national security by
illegally transferring sensitive technology, may be subject to
security checks known as Visas Mantis. In the spring of 2003, it
took an average of 67 days for Visas Mantis checks to be processed
and for State to notify consular posts of the results. Since then,
State and other agencies have taken actions which have reduced
delays to about 15 days for these checks.15
In addition, on July 13, 2005, the Secretary of Homeland Security
announced that the U.S. government had adopted a 10-print standard
for biometric collection for visas. In January 2006, the director
of the U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology
program16 testified that moving to a 10-fingerscan standard from a
2-print standard would allow the United States to be able to
identify visa applicants and visitors with even greater accuracy.
In February 2006, State reported that it plans to complete pilot
testing and procurement of the 10-print equipment to ensure that
all visa-issuing posts have collection capability by the end of
fiscal year 2007. Requiring applicants to submit 10-prints could
add more time to the applicant's interview and potentially delay
visa processing.
To help mitigate the adverse impact of these policy and procedural
changes on wait times, State has taken actions to help maintain
the right balance between promoting security and facilitating
travel. For example, while we have not assessed the impact of
these actions, all overseas posts have established procedures to
expedite the processing of business visas and are working closely
with local American Chambers of Commerce in more than 100
countries to expedite the visa process for bona fide business
travelers. In July 2005, State also established a Business Visa
Center to facilitate visa application procedures for U.S.
businesses in conjunction with upcoming travel or events.
Regarding foreign students, in February 2006, State announced that
it has extended the length of time foreign students may be issued
student visas, which will allow some students to apply up to 120
days before their academic program start date (as compared to 90
days under previous regulations).17 According to State, U.S.
embassies and consulates also have established special, expedited
visa interviews for prospective foreign students.
While not returning to levels prior to the September 11 attacks,
visa issuance rates increased in fiscal years 2004 and 2005,
according to State's data (see fig. 1). Should application volume
continue to increase, State has acknowledged that additional
management actions will be necessary to ensure that visa
applications are processed in a timely manner.
Figure 1: Worldwide Visa Issuance Volume, Fiscal Years 1992
through 2005
Note: According to State, the data for fiscal year 2005 are
preliminary as of November 23, 2005, and are subject to change.
In the future, we believe that increased global trade and economic
growth will likely result in increased demand for visas,
particularly in certain countries.
Embassy facilities at some posts limit the number of visa
applications that are processed each day and make it difficult to
keep up with visa demand. In our September 2005 report, we noted
that many visa chiefs we interviewed reported problems with their
facilities. For example, at 14 of the 25 posts covered in our
survey, consular officials rated their workspace as below average,
and 40 percent reported that applicants' waiting rooms were below
average. In addition, due to overcrowded waiting rooms at four of
the eight posts we visited, we observed visa applicants waiting
for their interviews outside or in adjacent hallways. Moreover, a
limited number of security guards and screening devices, as well
as limited physical space, often create bottlenecks at the
facilities' security checkpoints. In March 2006, we observed visa
facilities in Paris, France, and noted that there are insufficient
adjudicating windows to meet visa demand. A senior consular
official acknowledged that many consular facilities are located in
run-down buildings with insufficient adjudicating windows and
waiting rooms. In fiscal year 2003, Congress directed the Overseas
Building Operations Bureau to begin a 3-year Consular Workspace
Improvement Initiative to improve the overall working environment
for consular officers.18 In fiscal years 2003 and 2004, State
obligated $10.2 million to 79 workspace improvement projects at 68
posts. However, according to a senior consular official, these
funds are being used to provide temporary solutions at posts that
may require a new embassy as part of State's multibillion-dollar
embassy construction program. It may take years before some posts'
facilities needs are fully addressed.
To have sufficient resources to manage the demand for visas and
minimize the time applicants must wait, State may need to consider
establishing new visa-issuing posts. Indeed, in its 2005
inspection of the Embassy in New Delhi, for example, the Office of
the Inspector General stated that State should establish a
permanent consulate in Hyderabad, India, by no later than 2008 in
light of the need for expanded visa processing facilities due to
increased application volume. In March 2006, the President
announced that the United States would open a new consulate;
however, it is unclear when this may happen.
In September 2005, we reported that State faced staffing
shortfalls in consular positions-a key factor affecting the
effectiveness of the visa process and the length of time
applicants must wait for visas. As of April 30, 2005, we found
that 26 percent of midlevel consular positions were either vacant
or filled by an entry-level officer.19 In addition, almost
three-quarters of the vacant positions were at the FS-03
level-midlevel officers who generally supervise entry-level staff.
Consular officials attribute this shortfall to low hiring levels
prior to the Diplomatic Readiness Initiative20 and the necessary
expansion of entry-level positions to accommodate increasing
workload requirements after September 11, 2001. We believe
experienced supervision at visa-issuing posts is important to
avoiding visa delays. For example, experienced officers may
provide guidance to entry-level officers on ways to expedite visa
processing, including advising staff on when special security
checks are required.
During our February 2005 visits to Riyadh and Jeddah, Saudi
Arabia, and Cairo, Egypt, we observed that the consular sections
were staffed with entry-level officers on their first assignment
with no permanent midlevel visa chief to provide supervision and
guidance. Although these posts had other mid- or seniorlevel
consular officers, their availability on visa issues was limited
because of their additional responsibilities. For example, the
head of the visa section in Jeddah was responsible for managing
the entire section, as well as services for American citizens due
to a midlevel vacancy in that position. At the time of our visit,
the Riyadh Embassy did not have a midlevel visa chief. Similarly,
in Cairo, there was no permanent midlevel supervisor between the
winter of 2004 and the summer of 2005, and Consular Affairs used
five temporary staff on a rotating basis during this period to
serve in this capacity. Entry-level officers we spoke with stated
that due to the constant turnover, the temporary supervisors were
unable to assist them adequately. At the U.S. consulate in Jeddah,
entry-level officers expressed concern about the lack of a
midlevel supervisor. More recently, during a February 2006 visits
to posts in Nigeria and China, we found similar consular
vacancies. For example, first tour, entry-level officers in
Chengdu and Shenyang, China, are filling midlevel consular
positions.
We have reported on numerous occasions that factors such as
staffing shortages have contributed to long wait times for visas
at some posts. Since 2002, State has received funding to address
these shortfalls. Through the Diplomatic Readiness Initiative and
other sources, State increased the number of Foreign Service
officer consular positions by 364, from 1,037 in fiscal year 2002
to 1,401 in fiscal year 2005. However, while we have not studied
this issue, the disparity in wait times among posts may indicate
the need to reallocate positions to address the growing consular
demand and long wait times at some posts.
In the event of staffing shortfalls, State has mechanisms for
requesting increased staff resources. For example, if the Consular
Affairs Bureau identifies a need for additional staff in
headquarters or overseas, it may request that the Human Resources
Bureau establish new positions. In addition, posts can also
describe their needs for additional positions through their
consular package-a report submitted annually to the Consular
Affairs Bureau that details workload statistics and staffing
requirements, among other things. For example, in December 2004,
during the course of our work, the consular section in Riyadh
reported to Washington that there was an immediate need to create
a midlevel visa chief position at post, and consular officials
worked with human resource officials to create this position,
which, according to State officials, would be filled by summer
2005.
State's current assignment process does not guarantee that all
authorized positions will be filled, particularly at hardship
posts. Historically, State has rarely directed its employees to
serve in locations for which they have not bid on a position,
including hardship posts or locations of strategic importance to
the United States, due to concerns that such staff may be more apt
to have poor morale or be less productive.21 Due to State's
decision to not force assignments, along with the limited amount
of midlevel officers available to apply for them,22 important
positions may remain vacant.
According to a deputy assistant secretary for human resources,
Consular Affairs can prioritize those positions that require
immediate staffing to ensure that officers are assigned to fill
critical staffing gaps. For example, Consular Affairs could choose
not to advertise certain positions of lesser priority during an
annual assignment cycle. However, senior Consular Affairs
officials acknowledged that they rarely do this. According to
these officials, Consular Affairs does not have direct control
over the filling of all consular positions and can often face
resistance from regional bureaus and chiefs of mission overseas
who do not want vacancies at their posts. Thus, as we have
previously reported, certain high-priority positions may not be
filled if Foreign Service officers do not bid on them.
In commenting on a draft of our September 2005 report, State
disagreed with our recommendation that it prepare a comprehensive
plan to address vulnerabilities in consular staffing. State argued
that it already had such a plan. Moreover, State claimed that it
appreciates that priority positions must be filled worldwide based
on the relative strategic importance of posts and positions. While
State argued that every visa consular officer is serving a
strategic function, the department identified one post, Embassy
Baghdad, as a clear example of a priority post. Further, State
acknowledged that it has fewer midlevel consular officers than it
needs. We continue to believe it is incumbent on the department to
conduct a worldwide analysis to identify high-priority posts and
positions, such as supervisory consular positions in posts with
high-risk applicant pools or those with high workloads and long
wait times for applicant interviews. Although State noted that it
anticipated addressing this shortage of midlevel consular
officers, it did not indicate when that gap would be filled.
On January 18, 2006, the Secretary of State announced the
department's plan to restructure overseas and domestic staffing.
This plan aims to shift U.S. diplomatic personnel from European
posts and headquarters offices to posts in Africa, South Asia, the
Middle East, and elsewhere. While we have not conducted a
comprehensive review of this initiative, only midlevel political,
economic, and public diplomacy officers, and not consular
officers, would comprise the initial realignment of 100 positions,
according to State officials.
In February 2006, consular officials told us that, since our
report, they concluded a review of consular position grades to
ensure that they reflect the work requirements for each consular
position. Based on this analysis, consular officials recommended
that 47 positions be upgraded-from an entry- to midlevel position,
for example-to reconcile the management structures of posts that
have undergone rapid growth. However, State's bidding and
assignment process does not guarantee that the positions of
highest priority will always be filled with qualified officers.
Therefore, a further assessment is needed to ensure that State has
determined its staffing requirements and placed the right people
in the right posts with the necessary skill levels.
The visa process presents a balance between facilitating
legitimate travel and identifying those who might harm the United
States. State, in coordination with other agencies, has made
substantial improvements to the visa process to strengthen it as a
national security tool. However, given the large responsibility
placed on consular officers, particularly entry-level officers, it
is critical to provide consular posts with the resources necessary
for them to be effective. Indeed, extensive delays for visa
interview appointments point to the need for State to perform a
rigorous assessment of staffing requirements to achieve its goal
of having the right people with the right skills in the right
places.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I will be
happy to answer any questions you or Members of the Committee may
have.
For questions regarding this testimony, please call Jess T. Ford,
(202) 512-4128 or [email protected]. Individuals making key
contributions to this statement include John Brummet, Assistant
Director, and Kathryn Bernet, Eugene Beye, Joseph Carney, and Jane
Kim.
Border Security: Strengthened Visa Process Would Benefit From
Improvements in Staffing and Information Sharing. GAO-05-859 .
September 13, 2005.
Border Security: Actions Needed to Strengthen Management of
Department of Homeland Security's Visa Security Program.
GAO-05-801 . July 29, 2005.
Border Security: Streamlined Visas Mantis Program Has Lowered
Burden on Foreign Science Students and Scholars, but Further
Refinements Needed. GAO-05-198 . February 18, 2005.
Border Security: State Department Rollout of Biometric Visas on
Schedule, but Guidance Is Lagging. GAO-04-1001 . September 9,
2004.
Border Security: Additional Actions Needed to Eliminate Weaknesses
in the Visa Revocation Process. GAO-04-795 . July 13, 2004.
Visa Operations at U.S. Posts in Canada. GAO-04-708R . May 18,
2004.
Border Security: Improvements Needed to Reduce Time Taken to
Adjudicate Visas for Science Students and Scholars. GAO-04-371 .
February 25, 2004.
State Department: Targets for Hiring, Filling Vacancies Overseas
Being Met but Gaps Remain in Hard-to-Learn Languages. GAO-04-139 .
November 19, 2003.
Border Security: New Policies and Procedures Are Needed to Fill
Gaps in the Visa Revocation Process. GAO-03-798 . June 18, 2003.
Border Security: Implications of Eliminating the Visa Waiver
Program. GAO-03-38 . November 22, 2002.
Technology Assessment: Using Biometrics for Border Security.
GAO-03-174 . November 15, 2002.
Border Security: Visa Process Should Be Strengthened as an
Antiterrorism Tool. GAO-03-132NI . October 21, 2002.
State Department: Staffing Shortfalls and Ineffective Assignment
System Compromise Diplomatic Readiness at Hardship Posts.
GAO-02-626 . June 18, 2002.
State Department: Tourist Visa Processing Backlogs Persist and
U.S. Consulates. GAO/NSIAD-98-69 . March 13, 1998.
State Department: Backlogs of Tourist Visas at U.S. Consulates.
GAO/NSIAD-92-185 . April 30, 1992.
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in
meeting its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve
the performance and accountability of the federal government for
the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds;
evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses,
recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's
commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of
accountability, integrity, and reliability.
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at
no cost is through GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ). Each weekday,
GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on
its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted
products every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe
to Updates."
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies
are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out to the
Superintendent of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard.
Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a single address are
discounted 25 percent. Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D.C. 20548
To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax:
(202) 512-6061
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail:
[email protected] Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or
(202) 512-7470
Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4400
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125
Washington, D.C. 20548
Paul Anderson, Managing Director, [email protected] (202)
512-4800 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW,
Room 7149 Washington, D.C. 20548
12The Automated Biometric Identification System is a DHS database that
includes some 5 million people who may be ineligible to receive a visa.
For example, the Automated Biometric Identification System data includes,
among other records, FBI information on all known and suspected
terrorists, selected wanted persons, and previous criminal histories for
individuals from high-risk countries. See GAO, Border Security: State
Department Rollout of Biometric Visas on Schedule, but Guidance Is
Lagging, GAO-04-1001 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 9, 2004).
13Foreign Service national employees are non-U.S. citizens employed at a
U.S. Foreign Service post by a U.S. government agency.
14Consular associates are U.S. citizens and relatives of U.S. government
direct-hire employees overseas who, following successful completion of the
required Basic Consular Course, are hired by the Consular Section at their
post. Beginning in fiscal year 2002, State began a 3-year transition to
remove adjudication functions from consular associates and provide
additional consular officers.
15GAO, Border Security: Streamlined Visas Mantis Program Has Lowered
Burden on Foreign Science Students and Scholars, but Further Refinements
Needed, GAO-05-198 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 18, 2005).
16US-VISIT is a government wide program to collect, maintain, and share
information on foreign nationals and better control and monitor the entry,
visa status, and exit of visitors. Under the program, most foreign
visitors are required to submit to fingerprint scans of their right and
left index finger and have a digital photograph taken upon arrival at U.S.
ports of entry. As a complement to US-VISIT, State implemented the
Biometric Visa Program at all visa-issuing overseas consulates on October
26, 2004. See Section 303 of the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry
Reform Act of 2002, P.L. 107-173.
Increasing Visa Demand Strains Consular Resources
17These changes apply only to initial-entry students.
Facilities Constraints Limit State's Options for Addressing Visa Delays
18See House Conference Report 108-10, attached to P.L. 108-7, Consolidated
Appropriations Resolution, 2003.
Staffing Shortfalls Impact the Effectiveness of Visa Operations
19Foreign Service officers are assigned a grade, which ranges from FS-06
to FS-01, corresponding from entry-level to midlevel, respectively.
According to State, officers at grades 6 through 4 are classified as
junior officers; 3 through 1 are midlevel officers. In addition, members
of the senior Foreign Service are senior officers. In this testimony, we
refer to them as entry-level, midlevel, and senior-level officers.
20In fiscal year 2002, State launched the Diplomatic Readiness
Initiative-a 3-year effort to ensure global diplomatic readiness-through
which State reported that it hired 834 Foreign Service officers. In
addition, the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004
authorized the hiring of an additional 150 consular officers per year for
fiscal years 2006 through 2009. See P.L. 108-458 S: 7203.
State Has Not Assessed Overall Consular Resource Needs
21State defines hardship posts as those locations where the U.S.
government provides differential pay incentives-an additional 5 percent to
25 percent of base salary depending on the severity or difficulty of the
conditions-to encourage employees to bid on assignments to these posts and
to compensate them for the hardships they encounter. See GAO, State
Department: Staffing Shortfalls and Ineffective Assignment System
Compromise Diplomatic Readiness at Hardship Posts, GAO-02-626 (Washington,
D.C.: June 18, 2002).
22The assignment process begins when Foreign Service employees who are
eligible to be transferred from their current assignment each year receive
a list of instructions and upcoming vacancies for which they may compete.
Staff then must submit a list of those positions for which they want to be
considered.
Conclusions
Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
Appendix I: Related GAO Products
(320415)
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this
work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material
separately.
GAO's Mission
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony
Order by Mail or Phone
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
Congressional Relations
Public Affairs
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-542T.
To view the full product, including the scope
and methodology, click on the link above.
For more information, contact Jess Ford at (202) 512-4128 or
[email protected].
Highlights of GAO-06-542T, a testimony before the Committee on Government
Reform, House of Representatives
April 4, 2006
BORDER SECURITY
Reassessment of Consular Resource Requirements Could Help Address Visa
Delays
In deciding to approve or deny a visa application, the Department of
State's (State) consular officers are on the front line of defense in
protecting the United States against those who seek to harm U.S.
interests. To increase border security following the September 11 attacks,
Congress, State, and the Department of Homeland Security initiated a
series of changes to border security policies and procedures. These
changes have added to the complexity of consular workload. But consular
officers must balance this security responsibility against the need to
facilitate legitimate travel. In recent years, GAO has issued a series of
reports on the visa process. This statement discusses (1) wait times for
visas, (2) factors that affect wait times, and (3) GAO's recent work on
consular staffing.
What GAO Recommends
We recommended in October 2002 and again in September 2005 that State
reassess its consular staffing requirements. In commenting on a draft of
our September 2005 report, State disagreed with our recommendation that it
prepare a plan to address consular requirements. In light of the increased
workload due to additional border security requirements and ongoing
staffing shortages and processing delays at some posts, we continue to
urge State to fully assess its resource needs to ensure it has the right
people at key posts.
As a result of changes since September 11, 2001, aimed at strengthening
visa policies and procedures, applicants have faced extensive wait times
for visas at some posts. According to consular officials, posts that
consistently have wait times of 30 days or longer for interview
appointments may have a resource problem. During a recent 6-month period,
97 of State's 211 visa-issuing posts reported maximum wait times of 30 or
more days in at least one month; at 20 posts, the reported wait times were
in excess of 30 days for this entire 6-month period. Further, in February
2006, 9 posts reported wait times in excess of 90 days.
Several factors have contributed to these delays at some consular posts.
For example, Congress, State, and the Department of Homeland Security have
initiated new policies and procedures since the September 11 attacks to
strengthen the security of the visa process; however, these new
requirements have increased consular workload and exacerbated delays.
Additionally, some applicants have faced additional delays because of
special security checks for national security concerns. Other factors,
such as resurgence in visa demand and ongoing embassy facility
limitations, could continue to affect wait times.
We recently reported that State had not conducted a worldwide,
comprehensive assessment of staffing requirements for visa operations.
While State has increased hiring of consular officers, there is a need for
such an assessment to ensure that State has sufficient staff at key
consular posts, particularly in light of the visa processing delays at
some posts.
Consular Posts with Maximum Reported Wait Times for Temporary Business and
Tourism Visa Interview Appointments in Excess of 90 Days, February 2006
Post Maximum Wait Time in Days
Chennai, India 168
Ciudad Juarez, Mexico 92
Havana, Cuba 129
Mexico City, Mexico 134
Mumbai, India 154
New Delhi, India 91
Paris, France 116
Port Au Prince, Haiti 167
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil 140
Source: Department of State
Note: These data are based on reports from overseas consular posts to the
Consular Affairs Bureau in Washington, D.C. According to consular
officials, in cases where posts report wait time data more than once in a
given month, State's data are the maximum wait time reported that month.
*** End of document. ***